Don’t beat me up too badly, Marty, this is my first post and hopefully you will let me comment again.

I don't mind people expressing their opinions.

I mind people expressing the opinion that their opinions are unimpeachable and that anyone who disagrees with them is a cowardly cult member.

I hope you can see the difference.

Meanwhile, in the thread on "Electra Handling," please tell us about the tailwheel on the Beech 18. Was it connected to the rudders? Was it free-wheeling? Did you lock it for takeoff? Did you find that you needed a lot of right rudder as you built up speed to keep the Beech tracking straight on the runway for takeoff? Or shortly after takeoff?

... You on the other hand are a coward attacking anyone who examines it for themselves to be deemed unqualified.

... Given your faith based perspective of the world it is entirely understandable why it is that you lash out at others who dare threaten your faith and dreams of a jewel encrusted L10E hanging over a reef. Unlike yourself, I do not have such fantasies. I see things as they are and when it doubt, I actually have to ability to analyze the facts without my mental blinders on.

... Isn't that the mark of a coward? Claiming that others are not qualified yet more than happy to render your opinion on the matter?

... You on the other hand are a coward attacking anyone who examines it for themselves to be deemed unqualified.

... Given your faith based perspective of the world it is entirely understandable why it is that you lash out at others who dare threaten your faith and dreams of a jewel encrusted L10E hanging over a reef. Unlike yourself, I do not have such fantasies. I see things as they are and when it doubt, I actually have to ability to analyze the facts without my mental blinders on.

... Isn't that the mark of a coward? Claiming that others are not qualified yet more than happy to render your opinion on the matter?

Oh that, well given your general performance I rather thought it was about time you had your rather loose adherence to the rules mentioned. After all you accused me of inferring that Dr King had been a little fast and loose with the data, then when I pointed out your error you refused to retract instead you retreated into some mind blowing waffle of special pleading based on (the details became hazy as my eyes glazed over) something to do with the fourth letter in second word or the second letter in the fourth word.

Now I don't know about philosophers but an archaeologist who accuses another of deliberately bending the evidence is calling that person's ethics into question. Your deliberate twist made it appear that I actually had, what was worse was that not only hadn't I done so but throughout while I might debate interpretation of data I have never criticised the archaeological practice and presentation in any way. So in fact what you had done was use your position as a Moderator to indulge in unethical behaviour directed at me and when I asked for a retraction it was not forthcoming.

So perhaps you may excuse me being a little underwhelmed by your citing of Mr Smith's behaviour - seems me to be rather like the lachrymose tendency in crocodylidae.

Your deliberate twist made it appear that I actually had, what was worse was that not only hadn't I done so but throughout while I might debate interpretation of data I have never criticised the archaeological practice and presentation in any way. So in fact what you had done was use your position as a Moderator to indulge in unethical behaviour directed at me and when I asked for a retraction it was not forthcoming.

It's true that no apology is forthcoming from me. I think I've indicated that more than once. We disagree about the nature of what is and is not ethical on the Forum.

Quote

So perhaps you may excuse me being a little underwhelmed by your citing of Mr Smith's behaviour - seems me to be rather like the lachrymose tendency in crocodylidae.

That's quite a statement, and I'm not so sure it makes any sense. Would you please elaborate?

Yes.

Until someone invents a time machine, no one can replicated the initial conditions of a dig. It's a one-time experience to uncover, map, and recover artifacts.

When archaeologists dig a site, they destroy it.

If they lie (or are deceived) about what they find as they dig, the results of the dig will be unreliable.

The obligation to tell the truth is a metaphysical reality. It is not an artifact that can be dug out of the ground and dated. You cannot see, hear, taste, touch, or smell "truth." It is knowable, but not through the methods of the physical sciences.

Archaeology depends on a commitment to a metaphysical principle.

Archaeologists are human beings.

They are neither infallible nor impeccable (two distinct concepts).

We know that there have been archaeological hoaxes.

We don't know how many archaeologists have gotten away with lying about their results. Some hoaxes are easier to detect than others.

Deciding which archaeologist to trust and which one to doubt is not a scientific issue. It is a matter of forensics. How credible does the archaeologist seem to be? How competent? How much can be cross-checked with other reliable archaeologists on the site?

Neither photos nor videos of a dig can substitute for this judgment about the credibility of the diggers. Photos and videos can easily be manipulated. If someone wishes to deceive, they can find a way to subvert photography. The value of photographic evidence therefore depends on the credibility of the photographer, just as the value of archaeological evidence depends on the credibility of the archaeologist.

To come back to the issue at hand, there is no way to secure TIGHAR against the accusation of salting Niku with some Any-Idiot Artifacts. Of course, Malcolm never made this accusation himself. He deliberately and explicitly refrained from making any such accusation when he wrote, "As to belonging to the castaways I could have added that this would exclude salting the island with items sourced from elsewhere to falsify a proof - but as I cannot conceive why anyone would do such a dishonest thing then I felt that it needed to be left unsaid as irrelevant."

Such doubts about the ethical integrity of TIGHAR's expedition members cannot be resolved by archaeology or by any other natural science. You either judge that they are truth-tellers or you do not. That is why there is no Any-Idiot Artifact. Of every item that TIGHAR claims to have found on the island that might be related to the castaway or to the crew of the Electra, any idiot can say, "You cannot prove that you didn't put that artifact on the island during a previous visit."

Once again Marty you have refused to address my justified complaint, which was -

Now I don't know about philosophers but an archaeologist who accuses another of deliberately bending the evidence is calling that person's ethics into question. Your deliberate twist made it appear that I actually had, what was worse was that not only hadn't I done so but throughout while I might debate interpretation of data I have never criticised the archaeological practice and presentation in any way. So in fact what you had done was use your position as a Moderator to indulge in unethical behaviour directed at me and when I asked for a retraction it was not forthcoming.

I think that it is time that you voluntarily removed yourself as a moderator - it is clear that you have no idea of ethics at all.

Once again Marty you have refused to address my justified complaint ...

It is a metaphysical belief of yours that it is "justified."

No object of science "justifies" your complaint.

I see things differently from the way you do.

Quote

Now I don't know about philosophers but an archaeologist who accuses another of deliberately bending the evidence is calling that person's ethics into question. Your deliberate twist made it appear that I actually had, ...

I haven't twisted your words one bit. I haven't paraphrased them. All I have done is to classify them objectively as apophasis. It is a classic rhetorical ploy. Perhaps you have been unwilling to examine the link. Here is an excerpt from it:

Apophasis (Late Latin, from Greekἀπόφασις from ἀποφάναι—apophanai, "to say no"[1]) refers, in general, to "mention by not mentioning". Apophasis covers a wide variety of figures of speech. ...

Paralipsis (παράλειψις), also spelled paraleipsis or paralepsis, and known also as praeteritio, preterition, cataphasis (κατάφασις), antiphrasis (ἀντίφρασις), or parasiopesis (παρασιώπησις), is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer invokes a subject by denying that it should be invoked. As such, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony. Paralipsis is usually employed to make a subversivead hominem attack.The device is typically used to distance the speaker from unfair claims, while still bringing them up. For instance, a politician might say, "I don't even want to talk about the allegations that my opponent is a drunk."

Prolepsis is an extreme kind of paralipsis that gives the full details of the acts one is claiming to pass over; for example, "I will not stoop to mentioning the occasion last winter when our esteemed opponent was found asleep in an alleyway with an empty bottle of vodka still pressed to his lips."[2]

Paralipsis was often used by Cicero in his orations, such as "I will not even mention the fact that you betrayed us in the Roman people by aiding Catiline."

Quote

... what was worse was that not only hadn't I done so ...

That's the beauty of this particular rhetorical device. I never said you accused TIGHAR of salting Niku with artifacts. You did not say that at all. You merely insinuated it by indicating that it would be beneath your dignity to make such an accusation.

Quote

So in fact what you had done was use your position as a Moderator to indulge in unethical behaviour directed at me and when I asked for a retraction it was not forthcoming.

I don't consider it the least bit unethical to identify a figure of speech which you chose to use.

Nor do I consider it unethical to disagree with you. If I'm not mistaken, I am allowed to question authority. I doubt your command of the field of ethics, which is a philosophical field and which deals with metaphysical realities. Of course, as I've said before, I'm very heartened by your desire to express your beliefs in metaphysical realities like this, since archaeology depends on ethics to prevent lying, cheating, and stealing.

Quote

I think that it is time that you voluntarily removed yourself as a moderator - it is clear that you have no idea of ethics at all.

Ah--your creed is made evident again! You believe that you know what ethics is; you believe that you know how to apply the principles of ethics to this case; you judge that I "have no idea of ethics at all."

You've come a long way from your archaeological roots. Though I disagree with your ethics, I'm delighted to see that you believe in ethics in principle. You are truly a man of faith.

And I see once more Dr Moleski that you refuse to retract a lie. If that is your faith at work then I am very glad that I have none.

I have made a claim about the classification of a statement.

I have provided materials for others to check my claim.

It is an objective claim, although it is about rhetoric and not about the objects of science.

You have exhibited lots of faith--faith in ethics, faith in your grasp of ethics, and faith in your judgment that I have no ethics. Just because your faith differs from my faith, it does not fit into some other mental category. You live by faith just as much as any other human being. It's a beautiful thing to see how your horizons have expanded from the mere physicality of the natural sciences to the realm of metaphysics.

To come back to the issue at hand, there is no way to secure TIGHAR against the accusation of salting Niku with some Any-Idiot Artifacts. Of course, Malcolm never made this accusation himself. He deliberately and explicitly refrained from making any such accusation when he wrote, "As to belonging to the castaways I could have added that this would exclude salting the island with items sourced from elsewhere to falsify a proof - but as I cannot conceive why anyone would do such a dishonest thing then I felt that it needed to be left unsaid as irrelevant."

Marty you have finally managed to give me an apology by admitting that you lied by claiming that I had suggested malfeasance, when in fact it was your spin on my statement that created that interpretation. Thank you - it would, you must admit, have been a lot easier for you to have admitted that your original statement was in fact a deliberate or accidental misinterpretation of what I said. I will be charitable and assume that you did not intend to lie but instead you found yourself in a position that you could not escape from without embarrassment, but in the end I am glad to see that honesty did at last triumph.

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.